Access, ethics and piracy

Stuart, Lawson

doi:10.1629/uksg.333

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This amounts to a fundamental discord between the purpose of copyright (i.e., to grant full choice to an author/creator over dissemination of works) and the application of it, because authors lose these rights during copyright transfer. Such fundamental conceptual violations are emphasised by the popular use of sites such as ResearchGate and Sci-Hub for illicit file sharing by academics and the wider public (Björk 2017a;Chawla 2017;Jamali 2017;Lawson 2017;Laakso and Polonioli 2018). Factually, widespread, unrestricted sharing helps to advance science faster than paywalled articles, thus it can be argued that copyright transfer does a fundamental disservice to the entire research enterprise (Biasi and Moser 2018).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…What remains unclear is how these APCs reflect the true cost of publication and are related to the value added by the publisher. It has been argued that publishers to some extent take the quality -as indicated by citation rates per paper -into account when pricing APCs (Björk and Solomon 2015), but the available evidence also suggests that some publishers scale their APCs based on a number of external factors such as the JIF or certain research disciplines (Lawson 2014;Björk and Solomon 2014;Schönfelder 2018). It is known that 'hybrid OA' (where specific articles in subscription journals are made OA for a fee) generally costs more than 'gold OA' and can offer a lower quality of service 30 .…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Crane

Crick

Dávila

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of 'Open Science' or 'Open Research' has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of 'global' databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system. PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27580v1 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec

show abstract

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Crane

Crick

Dávila

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Digital resources are not natively excludable; a technical barrier has to be put in place. As the group size rises, the likelihood of 'leakage' -referred to as 'sharing' or 'piracy' (Lawson 2017), depending on your perspective -increases. Thus, resources are expended on strengthening excludability, which leads to both economic and political costs-as seen, for example, in the open access debate.…”

Section: The General Provisioning Problem For Collective Goods and Itmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustaining Scholarly Infrastructures through Collective Action: The Lessons that Olson can Teach us

Neylon

2017

KULA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The infrastructures that underpin scholarship and research, including repositories, curation systems, aggregators, indexes and standards, are public goods. Finding sustainability models to support them is a challenge due to free-loading, where someone who does not contribute to the support of an infrastructure nonetheless gains the benefit of it. The work of Mancur Olson (1965) suggests that there are only three ways to address this for large groups: compelling all potential users, often through some form of taxation, to support the infrastructure; providing non-collective (club) goods to contributors that are created as a side-effect of providing the collective good; or implementing mechanisms that lower the effective number of participants in the negotiation (oligopoly).In this paper, I use Olson's framework to analyse existing scholarly infrastructures and proposals for the sustainability of new infrastructures. This approach provides some important insights. First, it illustrates that the problems of sustainability are not merely ones of finance but of political economy, which means that focusing purely on financial sustainability in the absence of considering governance principles and community is the wrong approach. The second key insight this approach yields is that the size of the community supported by an infrastructure is a critical parameter. Sustainability models will need to change over the life cycle of an infrastructure with the growth (or decline) of the community. In both cases, identifying patterns for success and creating templates for governance and sustainability could be of significant value. Overall, this analysis demonstrates a need to consider how communities, platforms, and finances interact and suggests that a political economic analysis has real value.

show abstract

“…It is in this context that pirate websites such as Aaaaarg and Library Genesis appear, ignoring or circumventing intellectual property restrictions (Lawson, 2017). Sci-Hub is the best known of all these shadow libraries McLaughlin;Asher, 2017) and probably the most widely used, not only because of the volume of publications to which it gives access, but also because it has received unprecedented attention from both the mass media and academia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sci-Hub, a challenge for academic and research libraries

González-Solar

Fernández-Marcial

2019

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sci-Hub emerged into the field of scientific communication in 2011 as a platform for free access to scientific papers. It is the most popular of the so-called shadow libraries, systems that overcome the limits of legal access to scientific publications, standing apart from the open access movement. Besides from the media coverage that has served to boost its popularity, several studies reveal the impact of Sci-Hub among researchers, who have embraced this initiative. Sci-Hub has revealed new forms of access to scientific information, affecting academic and research libraries that cannot remain on the sidelines. This study addresses the Sci-Hub phenomenon and its implications for academic and research libraries from different points of view, through a bibliographic review and an analysis of examples of action.

show abstract

Access, ethics and piracy

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Sustaining Scholarly Infrastructures through Collective Action: The Lessons that Olson can Teach us

Sci-Hub, a challenge for academic and research libraries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About